The problem with ac3 is you are too involved with history. It was cool when you saw the first few events, but it quickly becomes "really your involved with literally every single event in us history? Really? Come on" your not even telling me an assassin creed story anymore.

I dunno, I'm willing to bet that if we were more knowledgeable about the Third Crusade era and Renaissance Italy we'd probably be saying the same thing.

And Assassin's Creed has always been about secret societies manipulating world events. It would be strange for the Templar and Assassins to NOT end up involved in the American Revolution.

@JZ said:

The problem with ac3 is-

The problem with Assassin's Creed III is that it's so god damn boring. I only made it maybe 1/3 into the game, but god damn, I don't want to keep playing it.

@TooWalrus said:

@JZ said:

The problem with ac3 is-

The problem with Assassin's Creed III is that it's so god damn boring. I only made it maybe 1/3 into the game, but god damn, I don't want to keep playing it.

I finished it and although it had its moments it was still forgettable. The mission design throughout the game never reached the quality of Brotherhood or AC 2...and then that ending....ugh.

@Colourful_Hippie: Yes, I listened to the GOTY podcast because I'd already decided that I probably wasn't going to finish it. That sounds pretty bad. I legitimately liked the beginning where you were playing as Conner's dad, but Conner just doesn't seem to have much in the personality department.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@TooWalrus said:

@JZ said:

The problem with ac3 is-

The problem with Assassin's Creed III is that it's so god damn boring. I only made it maybe 1/3 into the game, but god damn, I don't want to keep playing it.

I finished it and although it had its moments it was still forgettable. The mission design throughout the game never reached the quality of Brotherhood or AC 2...and then that ending....ugh.

Yup it never reached the level of 2 or Brotherhood for me either. This is one of the games I'm baffled about getting such high reviews and praise from critics when it is so clearly flawed and boring.

@JZ said:

Come on" your not even telling me an assassin creed story anymore.

Let me take that statement one step further: You're not even letting me assassinate mofos anymore.

But I agree with your point, I was overwhelmed with the level of focus on historical events and personalities and Connor being there for each and every gig.

@msavo: I'd argue that mechanically it's a stronger game than AC2. The story may not be as colorful but I never felt compelled to stop because what I was actually doing was almost always fun or over so quickly that it didn't matter. I walked away from AC2 and Brotherhood multiple times just because of how frustrating those games could be to control.

EDIT: And this has nothing to do with the OP anyways. Sorry OP.

@StarvingGamer said:

I dunno, I'm willing to bet that if we were more knowledgeable about the Third Crusade era and Renaissance Italy we'd probably be saying the same thing.

And Assassin's Creed has always been about secret societies manipulating world events. It would be strange for the Templar and Assassin's to NOT end up involved in the American Revolution.

I understood Patrick's argument to an extent -- sharing a horse with Paul Revere does look really lame -- but once I actually played the game, stuff like that made sense. How can a developer make a game set directly in the American Revolution and not have the player take part in the Boston Tea Party or stand next to Washington at Valley Forge? It's a little dumb at first, yes, but as much as I surprisingly enjoyed ACIII, that game has far worse issues.

@wjb: Yeah, even I had to stop for a moment and say, "Really?" to Paul Revere's ride, but by-and-large everything was fantastically plausible.

@msavo said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

@TooWalrus said:

@JZ said:

The problem with ac3 is-

The problem with Assassin's Creed III is that it's so god damn boring. I only made it maybe 1/3 into the game, but god damn, I don't want to keep playing it.

I finished it and although it had its moments it was still forgettable. The mission design throughout the game never reached the quality of Brotherhood or AC 2...and then that ending....ugh.

Yup it never reached the level of 2 or Brotherhood for me either. This is one of the games I'm baffled about getting such high reviews and praise from critics when it is so clearly flawed and boring.

In some way it's ambitious because of the attempts at also putting in missions that take place in the future setting and the new setting in the animus is amazing on a technical level but the content was just not compelling at all.

@StarvingGamer: You're right, the mechanics in that are the best they have ever been, those frustrating mis-jumps that plagued the past games have been fixed, too bad that you're not really doing anything fun with the refined mechanics.

I guess I didn't mind that part, during all of the parts involving famous, iconic moments in U.S. history I was too focused to trying to claw my way through the immensely shitty mission design. Seriously, I get it. You made a Bunker Hill setpiece. Do I really have to run all the way down the fucker and get the timing on getting into cover JUST right?

Paul Revere's ride was laughable, in retrospect. When I was actually playing it, I'm pretty sure I was just pissed off.

AD 33, it must be done!

US History is really boring guys

You should all get some schooling in England where all you learn about is Henry VIII and WW2

US History is really boring guys

You should all get some schooling in England where all you learn about is Henry VIII and WW2

How do you ever get that far? I never even got to Connor and this is the worst gaming experience I've had in a decade.

@BisonHero: There are a couple of board games about Canadian history that are supposed to be fascinationg. Off the top of my head, the only one I remember is A Few Acres of Snow.